A defense against drones?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm kind of hesistant to ask this question, as it is kind of an invitation for one of my least favorite varieties of internet posters to partake (the "military expert"), but I'm going to ask anyway. Is there a viable defense against drones?

Drones seem to me to be a revolution in military science, from what I've read. They can be mass produced cheaply and can be dispatched without the risk of casualties, which puts opposition forces at a serious disadvantage. The drones today are just the tip of the iceberg, there are already drones as big as insects, and soon "drone swarms".

[28350]

i'm totally just saying this because of the matrix, but what about something like an EMP gun? The drones would probably be too high though.

we could shine lasers in their robot eyes

[l'Enfermé]

What can you do to defend yourself against unmanned, high-altitude machines that rain death and destruction? You can't even see them.

Pray?

[Psy]

WWII era anti-air guns can easily shoot down drones as drones fly much slower then WWII fighters, thus the WWII anti-air tactic of simply throwing up walls of flak would work for armies with a large enough industrial base to flood their skies with high explosive rounds. Modern radar guided SAMs would be far more cost effective defense, as modern SAMs are designed to shoot down super sonic jets thus would have no trouble catching up with slow moving UAVs.

Of course all these defenses doesn't exploit the achilles' heel of UAVs which is that they require a RF link, and electronic warfare can easily break that link which is why RF guided missiles are obsolete. All one would have to do is jam all radio frequencies over a large area (like from a radio/TV tower) and that area would be a no fly zone for UAVs as the jamming would prevent them from communicating to their control computer.

[Ele'ill]

Of course all these defenses doesn't exploit the achilles' heel of UAVs which is that they require a RF link, and electronic warfare can easily break that link which is why RF guided missiles are obsolete. All one would have to do is jam all radio frequencies over a large area (like from a radio/TV tower) and that area would be a no fly zone for UAVs as the jamming would prevent them from communicating to their control computer.

Aren't most radio towers/TV towers the first targets usually bombed by conventional aircraft?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm actually less interested in how an actual army w/ real anti-aircraft capabilities would respond drones, as drone technology hasn't really seemed to have advanced to the point where it would be a real factor in a major war, I'm more interested in how insurgents in places like Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Chechnya etc. could respond effectively to drones, as drone warfare up to this point has seemed to be more of a counter-insurgency measure than anything else.

[Psy]

Aren't most radio towers/TV towers the first targets usually bombed by conventional aircraft?
Thus why modern armies have mobile electronic warfare transmitters, also nuclear fission sends out a lot of noise across radio frequencies meaning it is impossible for any wireless communication after nuclear weapons are used, thus nuclear SAMs (yes they exist) would quickly make skies a no fly zone for UAVs and there is nothing anyone can do to restore wireless communication, everyone just have to wait for radioactive decay to reach a point where it is no longer jamming radio frequencies.

[citizen of industry]

http://www.iww.org/sites/default/files/images/tumblr_lhwry1Jbe51qduy0jo1_r1_1280.preview.png

Drones have to be manufactured. The materials used in their production have to be manufactured and transported. Likewise for the ammunition they carry. They also have to be operated and maintained by technicians. Mass strikes can take down drones.

[ellipsis]

small arms fire should fine for a lot of lower flying drones. I would guess.

shining lasers at drones would disorient its sensors and blind its cameras. i imagine a number of spinning collections of lasers, kind like at a laser light show. at the very least it would fuck with it hard core, if not make it crash.

[piet11111]

I'm actually less interested in how an actual army w/ real anti-aircraft capabilities would respond drones, as drone technology hasn't really seemed to have advanced to the point where it would be a real factor in a major war, I'm more interested in how insurgents in places like Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Chechnya etc. could respond effectively to drones, as drone warfare up to this point has seemed to be more of a counter-insurgency measure than anything else.


Sticking to tunnels and inside rocky cliffs where the camera's wont be able to detect them directly due to line of sight.
Also i have read that in Iraq insurgents have special blankets that manage to reduce their infra red signature (bodyheat) to the point where they don't appear on monitors besides an extremely difficult to spot shadow (that due to the blanket doesn't have a human shape to begin with)

And for normal camera's standard camo netting and not doing suspicious things is all that can be done.

Also sticking close to civilians and following their normal patterns as cover for their own.
In Afghanistan it would be logical to follow a goat herder into the country side and to any drones pretend your his assistant or something.

[ellipsis]

as mod, i feel like i should say that all of this discussion is meant only for academic consideration.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm actually less interested in how an actual army w/ real anti-aircraft capabilities would respond drones, as drone technology hasn't really seemed to have advanced to the point where it would be a real factor in a major war, I'm more interested in how insurgents in places like Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Chechnya etc. could respond effectively to drones, as drone warfare up to this point has seemed to be more of a counter-insurgency measure than anything else.

Then the problem is on the other side: drones can be extremely deadly, but they cannot effectively occupy territory. So unless the point of the counter-insurgency is actual genocide - which it doesn't seem to be in any of the examples you give - they must be followed by regular infantry, which is, as we know, vulnerable to guerrilla tactics.

...that, out of academic considerations, of course.

Luís Henrique

[Mr. Natural]

These drones are an Orwellian nightmare, and indicate the extent of the triumph of capitalist globalization. We can now be surveiled (and destroyed) at the convenience of The System.

I "live" in the US. Obama, acting as global capitalism's office manager, can now drone-kill American citizens without any legal procedure, and just made it legal for the military on its initiative to arrest and indefinitely confine American citizens as it desires.

There has been no effective response in the modern industrial economies to capitalism's relentless advance. None. In fact, there has hardly been any response at all.

Read Orwell's 1984, comrades, if you haven't already done so. We're there.

The left has been unable to organize, yet my many posts emphasizing the need to engage the new sciences of organization are ignored. Where did the revolutionary inclinations, intellects, and spirits go? Answer: they were captured by the systemic values and institutions of capitalism.

Capitalism has enveloped humanity, resulting in the profound convervatism and passivity currently haunting the left. I have to battle this conservatism on a daily basis if I am not to become terminally demoralized and depressed. Deep alienation is when you begin to dislike your species.

[NoPasaran1936]

WWII era anti-air guns can easily shoot down drones as drones fly much slower then WWII fighters, thus the WWII anti-air tactic of simply throwing up walls of flak would work for armies with a large enough industrial base to flood their skies with high explosive rounds. Modern radar guided SAMs would be far more cost effective defense, as modern SAMs are designed to shoot down super sonic jets thus would have no trouble catching up with slow moving UAVs.

Of course all these defenses doesn't exploit the achilles' heel of UAVs which is that they require a RF link, and electronic warfare can easily break that link which is why RF guided missiles are obsolete. All one would have to do is jam all radio frequencies over a large area (like from a radio/TV tower) and that area would be a no fly zone for UAVs as the jamming would prevent them from communicating to their control computer.

Provided that the hellfire rockets haven't locked onto your position about 40 miles away...Then yes, what this fella said.

[Psy]

Provided that the hellfire rockets haven't locked onto your position about 40 miles away...Then yes, what this fella said.
Kinda hard for for the hellfire's guidance systems to work when flying through heavy jamming, it is the reason radar guided missles like the hellfire have not replaced wire guided missiles.

Basically UAVs are meant for air strikes against non-modernized forces, the Red Army of even Khrushchev's era would find modern UAVs as nothing more then toys that would pose less threat to them then WWII era weapons.

[gorillafuck]

I would imagine that there could be aircraft set up to patrol the skies for drones.

but as far as groups currently targeted by drones (insurgents), there is really no defense.

[ellipsis]

Read Orwell's 1984, comrades, if you haven't already done so. We're there.

Who is this Orwell guy? and what is a 1984? this is the first time i've ever heard of this, especially on this forum. oh wait i think they mentioned it on the tv show big brother season 16.

but seriously, that analogy is getting old, yes shit is getting scary, but i still have shaving razors and guns and the ability to be political active and dissent, the most powerful big brother is the panopticon, do not ascribe undue power to technology and the state.

[Mr. Natural]

theredson, Aren't you whistling past the graveyard?

You wrote, "I still have shaving razors and guns and the ability to be politically active and dissent ... do not ascribe undue power to technology and the state."

My point is that capitalism's globalization means that its values and institutions now envelop life on Earth. Its organization--so alien to life--is shaping living organization, and for people, this means a growing mental as well as physical captivity. Humans are now capitalist agents of their own destruction, and capitalism's states and technologies are fearsome.

None more so than predator drones. I'm a few hundred miles north of you, theredson, and the most progressive person I know in my area is an Obama worshipper. Bah, humbug! I'm not aware of anything happening in your metropolitan area either, though. OWS liberalism hasn't even brought capitalism into question--just some of its more offensive practices.

I left the Bay Area to roam the Northwest for awhile in search of any possibly effective radical activity. There was none. Absolutely nothing.

I sure could have missed something. Perhaps you have something going, in which case, though, you can look forward to acquiring your own personal informer, drone, and fly-on-the-wall.

I'm not saying we cannot create revolutionary organizations and practices. We can, but we had better first wake up and see what has happened re-capitalism's systemic mental and physical imprisonment of humanity. Capitalism has triumphed, and Orwell's 1984 captures the sense of the state(s) that are emerging.

We must learn how to organize, and as I've noted in more than a few posts, the Sciences and Environment forum ignores the new sciences of the organization of life on Earth. This forum is boring as hell, while it should be radically interesting and effective.

OWS shows, at least, that there is still a potentially active undercurrent of discontent in the US. But where is any awareness of the real problem: capitalism? Where is the left?

[Amal]

theredson, Aren't you whistling past the graveyard?

You wrote, "I still have shaving razors and guns and the ability to be politically active and dissent ... do not ascribe undue power to technology and the state."

My point is that capitalism's globalization means that its values and institutions now envelop life on Earth. Its organization--so alien to life--is shaping living organization, and for people, this means a growing mental as well as physical captivity. Humans are now capitalist agents of their own destruction, and capitalism's states and technologies are fearsome.

None more so than predator drones. I'm a few hundred miles north of you, theredson, and the most progressive person I know in my area is an Obama worshipper. Bah, humbug! I'm not aware of anything happening in your metropolitan area either, though. OWS liberalism hasn't even brought capitalism into question--just some of its more offensive practices.

I left the Bay Area to roam the Northwest for awhile in search of any possibly effective radical activity. There was none. Absolutely nothing.

I sure could have missed something. Perhaps you have something going, in which case, though, you can look forward to acquiring your own personal informer, drone, and fly-on-the-wall.

I'm not saying we cannot create revolutionary organizations and practices. We can, but we had better first wake up and see what has happened re-capitalism's systemic mental and physical imprisonment of humanity. Capitalism has triumphed, and Orwell's 1984 captures the sense of the state(s) that are emerging.

We must learn how to organize, and as I've noted in more than a few posts, the Sciences and Environment forum ignores the new sciences of the organization of life on Earth. This forum is boring as hell, while it should be radically interesting and effective.

OWS shows, at least, that there is still a potentially active undercurrent of discontent in the US. But where is any awareness of the real problem: capitalism? Where is the left?
Just look the posts in various threads of this forum and you can understand that. Citizens of most US and European and other countries like Canada, Australia etc have their full with craps like "NO personality cult", "NO vanguard ", "freedom of press and speech" etc and are just unable to understand that those phrases are totally hollow. Just look at any thread about NK and you can see it's full of words like "famine", "starvation", "military state", "personality cult" etc. Threads on Iran is full of crap like "Islamist", "primitive". As if NK is under famine and all (except the party leadership and bureaucracy) are starving from the days of Korean war. None just gone to notice that the no. of underweight children is far greater in India, world's biggest democracy. Don't want to mention other aspects as it's just a waste of time. As if "Islamism" exists only in Iran and Saudi Arab and other gulf countries are "pure democracy". Nobody want to look on the facts that Iran have highest literacy rate among woman in whole middle East.
And over and above all, the GREAT STATE CAPITALISM AND BUREAUCRACY. What we will get by overthrowing capitalism? 1) STATE CAPITALISM, 2) BUREAUCRACY AND 3) SUPPRESSION OF WORKERS(!). If you know that, do you have any urge to change capitalism?

[ellipsis]

Occupy Oakland is going on in my metro area...

[Ravachol]

For an overview of UAV operations: http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fmi3-04-155.pdf

When it comes to Electronic Warfare and anti-UAV operations, there are several common approaches and pitfalls as explained in: www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/uas-vuln.pdf



EW (Electronic Warfare) is a set of measures and actions performed by conflicting sides to detect and attack enemy electronic systems for the control of forces and weapons, including high precision weapons, as well as to electronically defend one’s own electronic systems and other targets from technical intelligence, jamming and non-deliberate interference (Vakin, Shustov, and Dunwell 2001, 1).
(..)
This attack would come in the form of an active jammer designed to drown out the CDLs communications. Jamming is a form of EA using an electronic device, known as a jammer, to transmit high power signal at receiver to disrupt signal quality . The three forms of jamming this study reviewed is broadband noise, tone, and swept jamming (Poisel 2003, 213).




EP (Electronic Protection) is the subdivision of EW where military forces take action to protect personnel, facilities, and equipment from any effects of friendly or enemy use of the electromagnetic spectrum that degrade, neutralize, or destroy friendly combat capability (US Joint Forces Command 2007a, 8).
(..)
A vulnerable system conducts a defensive EA to deny an enemy the use of the electromagnetic spectrum to attack the system (Headquarters, Department of the Army 2009c, 13). This fix to system vulnerability is referred to as electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) (Schlesinger 1961, 55). A common defensive EA component designed for aircraft is a counter-jammer.
An airborne counter-jammer jams in the same manner as a ground based system. They detect a jamming signal directed against an aircrafts communications system and transmit a counter-jamming signal toward the threat jammer (Puttre 2004, 57). Various self-protection electronic systems are currently available and some larger UAS have tested systems such as the AN/ULQ-21 (Puttre 2004, 67). It is very difficult to develop a completely effective ECCM system due to the dynamic nature of EW. Military forces may invest millions of dollars and an incredible amount of time to develop an ECCM that is obsolete soon after fielding. ECCM equipment often countered by electronic counter-counter countermeasures (ECCCM) and countering portion of the ECCM term can be carried to the ridiculous extreme (Schlesinger 1961, 55). An overarching EW philosophy is that designers cannot make a communications system jam-proof but they can make a communications system jam-resistant. The ability to jam communications or the ability to resist jamming is a question of power. If sufficient power is available, any frequency within the electromagnetic spectrum can be jammed (Wilson 2010).
It would be difficult for a Man-Portable or Tactical UAS to produce sufficient power to resist an EA. Most Man-Portable UAS are battery powered and do not have the capability to produce their own power. Any power diverted for electronic self-protection would drastically affect their mission (Hill 2010). A Tactical UAS generates the power required to operate its systems but its ability to support additional power requirements is questionable (Hill 2010). The power production capability of a UAS is limited and the power potential of a UAS counter-jammer will be equally limited. A Tactical UAS generates the power required to operate its systems but its ability to support additional power requirements is questionable (Hill 2010). The power production capability of a UAS is limited and the power potential of a UAS counter-jammer will be equally limited.


So effective anti-UAV operations would be possible for a sufficiently advanced insurgent force, provided they have a degree of control over (or free movement within) some base area and it's power resources (and appropriate jamming equipment). In addition, insurgent forces would have to posses knowledge of what UAVs are being employed by counter-insurgency forces and rudimentary working knowledge of these particular types, including technical details such as frequencies,etc. This information can be hard to obtain for a small or unsophisticated insurgent force.

[blake 3:17]

Drones have to be manufactured. The materials used in their production have to be manufactured and transported. Likewise for the ammunition they carry. They also have to be operated and maintained by technicians. Mass strikes can take down drones.

It'd be great to see strike action taken by producers of these horrible evil weapons.

Do you of any historically? There've been some labour disruptions over weapons manufacture/distribution during the Vietnam and Iraq wars. The contemporary Left is generally pretty ignorant of the anti-nukes movement. Preventing the mining of uranium is a HUGE step forward.

[blake 3:17]

Please excuse double post:


So effective anti-UAV operations would be possible for a sufficiently advanced insurgent force, provided they have a degree of control over (or free movement within) some base area and it's power resources (and appropriate jamming equipment). In addition, insurgent forces would have to posses knowledge of what UAVs are being employed by counter-insurgency forces and rudimentary working knowledge of these particular types, including technical details such as frequencies,etc. This information can be hard to obtain for a small or unsophisticated insurgent force.

Isn't that why they love these things? They veer between extremely calculated routes and/or totally crazy flying bombs. Disrupting the production of the primary devices would be very hard to do. Shooting them down could just turn them into firebombs wouldn't they?

There's famous anecdote that I refer to often about the leaders of Italian Communist Party meeting with Vietnamese NLF. When the Italians asked what they could do, the Vietnamese were clear that the most useful thing to do was that they should carry out their own revolution. Not what the PCI wanted to hear, but the right answer.

[Psy]

Shooting them down could just turn them into firebombs wouldn't they?

No because modern warheads have a stable explosive compound that requires another explosive force (priming charge) to set it off, the shock waves of a SAM hitting the UAV would not be enough to set off the warheads the UAV was carrying and the UAV colliding with the ground also won't set them off.

[KlassWar]

Ideally, you'd employ a combination of electronic detectors (probably a mix of radar and other methods) and automated AA guns. Unfortunately, it requires a level of technological sophistication that most insurgents lack.

Without proper technological countermeasures, hiding and/or hardening your bases against attacks is probably a more practical strategy. If the insurgents have the means to do so, reprisal attacks against enemy personnel can be used to discourage drone strikes (an exponent of the tried-and-true tactic of making the enemy's actions costly enough that they won't bother).

[Ravachol]

No because modern warheads have a stable explosive compound that requires another explosive force (priming charge) to set it off, the shock waves of a SAM hitting the UAV would not be enough to set off the warheads the UAV was carrying and the UAV colliding with the ground also won't set them off.

Besides, while UAVs are used to take out key operatives of organisations like Al-Qaeda or Al-Shabaab using explosive warheads, the use of UAVs primarily remains with reconnaissance operations. Additionally, using UAVs to combat urban-centric insurgencies is a whole different ballgame. The nature of an insurgency is such that it is hard to isolate the insurgents and insurgent parts of a city from it's pacified counter-parts, at least during a long initial phase. A state can't (or rather, won't) simply bomb every suspect vehicle or building using hellfire missiles in urban counter-insurgency operations because of the combination of political effects, damage to facilities and productive structures,etc.

Most likely, we will see the development of UAVs armed with high-precision armaments, either in the form of mounted machineguns or sniper rifles, such as this: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/planes-uavs/4313331



The Army's solution is the Autonomous Rotorcraft Sniper System (ARSS), a small, unmanned helicopter equipped with a powerful .338-caliber rifle. An autopilot system handles the tricky business of flying while the operator lines up the kill shot on a remote monitor.

The Army ground-tested the rifle's turret on a Vigilante unmanned helicopter to evaluate its accuracy. The turret-control hardware and flight-control algorithms will be refined to make shots more accurate before airborne testing begins in July. The program's heads say the airborne robo-sniper idea was put forward five years ago, but only became practical when Utah State University's Space Dynamics Laboratory designed a lightweight, stabilized turret. Users control it with an adapted Xbox 360 controller. The same turret could be used on unmanned fixed-wing aircraft such as the Predator or Reaper and could also allow ground robots to fire on the move.


As noted, the ARSS also supports a variety of other mounted weapons, including 'crowd control' options:



+M249 5.56-mm squad automatic weapon, a small-caliber machine gun
+M240 7.62-mm machine gun, a weapon used by the U.S. and NATO
+AA-12 12-gauge, a full-auto shotgun
+Peak Beam Immobilizer, a xenon strobe light that stuns targets with "psycho-physical" effects like disorientation and nausea


Now couple this with sufficiently advanced artificial intelligence allowing for a great degree of UAV autonomy, possibly linking it up to a feed supplying locations of 'suspicious activity' gathered through large-scale datamining operations (using social media, the vast CCTV network, network interception,etc.) and we can see how repression can become technically condensed, materializing the logic of dominance into an automated form.

[bcbm]

but seriously, that analogy is getting old, yes shit is getting scary, but i still have shaving razors and guns and the ability to be political active and dissent,

and therein the proof of capitalisms victory over life

[Yefim Zverev]

drones are really annoying... I cant think of a true viable solution (other than destroying the source)

[Psy]

Besides, while UAVs are used to take out key operatives of organisations like Al-Qaeda or Al-Shabaab using explosive warheads, the use of UAVs primarily remains with reconnaissance operations.

That makes the UAV a joke to modern armies due smoke screens that block IR optics , these IR blocking smoke screens are toxic to humans but infantry with respirator would have no problem and all modern armored vehicles are over-pressured thus also would have no problem.

[Renegade Saint]

We don't have to speculate, the Iranians have already brought down US drones intact (let alone if they just wanted to destroy it); ask them.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Now couple this with sufficiently advanced artificial intelligence allowing for a great degree of UAV autonomy, possibly linking it up to a feed supplying locations of 'suspicious activity' gathered through large-scale datamining operations (using social media, the vast CCTV network, network interception,etc.) and we can see how repression can become technically condensed, materializing the logic of dominance into an automated form.

I think that the automation only goes so far, though...as someone else once said, it's going to come under intense scrutiny once someone engages in a bit of counter-information, makes a call from a "marked" cell phone and a missile crashes into a four-star general's or politican's house.

[Mr. Natural]

There is no people's military solution to drones. The only response is to develop a radical political awareness and learn how to organize for life and communism against capitalism.

This forum should be developing such theories and responses. It should be full of energetic posts exploring the new science(s) of the organization of life and applying this science to the development of popular, grassroots revolutionary processes.

Most of the technological and new-scientific-discovery posts in this forum could appear on any liberal site.

Where are the radical, revolutionary discussions in this forum? Where are the new sciences of organization in an ostensibly revolutionary science forum?

How, how, how is it possible for this science forum to assiduously ignore radical, liberating science?

I'm waiting for someone around here to even acknowledge this is the present state of the Sciences and Environment forum. We can do better--much better.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Go ahead and start a thread on the topic, then. No one's stopping you.

[Mr. Natural]

Os Cangaceiros, I appreciate that you didn't label me a "whiner." I'm not. I'm a revolutionary in an era that begs for revolution yet lacks any effective revolutionary theory or even spirit. I can think of several comrades who are exceptions to this description, but ...

I got a computer and joined Revleft almost a year ago and my first postings were in the "A Dialectical 'Theory of Everything'" thread begun by Miguel Detonnaciones that got 364 posts, most of which were by Miguel, myself, and ckaihatsu. The thread went nowhere ultimately, but here is what I learned there and in other threads and on other left sites:

There is a universal dismissal of the materialist dialectic as practiced in its organic wholeness by Marx and Engels, and there is no discussion of the new sciences of organization by we who cannot organize. Worst of all: there is almost no interest in developing such discussions.

So I'm around and will eventually begin a thread or two here, but I can't figure out how to effectively engage others whose lives and minds have been so effectively captured by The System.

I find the current passivity and conservatism of the left both infuriating and deeply sad.

[Ravachol]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Chhattisgarh/Anti-Naxal-ops-Hand-launched-UAVs-to-be-deployed/Article1-740016.aspx

Apparently, the Indian security apparatus is deploying UAVs in their anti-Naxal operations as well now. Would be interesting to see how that works out as the Naxals have shown themselves to be relatively tech-savvy, operating in India where the country-side periphery isn't as removed from urban areas as in say, Afghanistan's mountain ranges. The Naxals have been known to blow up mobile towers (http://vickynanjapa.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/mobile-towers-and-naxals-what-is-the-connection/) in order to avoid triangulation-based intelligence gathering as well as cutting off communication resources of informers and anti-naxal hunting teams.



Hand-launched unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will soon be deployed in Naxal-hit zones of the country to provide security forces a close range surveillance of the ground terrain.

Initially, two mini UAVs are proposed to be deployed in Chhattisgarh and a border-area of Jharkhand to


gather ground information for security forces before they embark on anti-Naxal operations and launch planned offensives.

A proposal in this regard was recently submitted to the home ministry by the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), which has deployed close to 70,000 troops for counter-Naxal operations.

Officials involved in the trials and testing of these machines, aimed to gather advanced reconnaissance and situational awareness functions, said the technical wing of the CRPF recently flew such an in-house developed machine over Chandigarh.

"The results were encouraging. Hence UAVs of Skylark make which can be launched by hand are being chosen to be deployed in Naxal-affected areas," a senior officer said.

The mini UAVs can be quickly assembled before the mission and are recovered by landing the vehicle on a small inflatable cushion. The UAV is armed with gadgets to capture images and can carry payload to fly for almost three hours.

The UAV has been used by Nato forces in various missions to ensure security of their camps from ambush and fire attacks, the officer said.

The entire mission of this mini UAV is flown independently and it feeds real-time video and other geographical data to the portable ground station.

Security forces have been scouting for UAVs after 76 security personnel were killed in a deadly Naxal ambush in Chhattisgarh's Dantewada district last year.

Security agencies have been trying different variants of UAVs for Naxal-hit areas, dotted by thick foliage, to track the movement of the ultras and get correct information about the terrain they operate in.

The Central government has deployed ITBP and BSF apart from the CRPF for anti-Naxal operations in the affected states along with state police forces and other special units.

[Yefim Zverev]

I wonder what Che would say on drones. Guerrilla Warfare :(

[Mr. Natural]

Didn't a "drone" of sorts get Che? Wasn't the CIA aerially tracking him in Bolivia, and didn't this lead to his capture and execution?

The only defense against drones and all of the other surveillance and suppressive technologies being developed is people's anarchist/socialist/communist revolution, and time is running out.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I recently read an interview with an artist (and socialist, but that's kinda irrelevant) who claimed drones will become "common" technology, just like internet, social media etc., because they're very easy to make. So the technology that's used for oppression today, can turn into liberating technology tomorrow.

I guess in that perspective, drones could be used as a defense against those who send drones after you? That's not a direct defense against drones, though.

[piet11111]

That piracy website we all know and love is experimenting with drones for hosting.


One of the technical things we always optimize is where to put our front machines. They are the ones that re-direct your traffic to a secret location. We have now decided to try to build something extraordinary.
With the development of GPS controlled drones, far-reaching cheap radio equipment and tiny new computers like the Raspberry Pi, we're going to experiment with sending out some small drones that will float some kilometers up in the air. This way our machines will have to be shut down with aeroplanes in order to shut down the system. A real act of war.
We're just starting so we haven't figured everything out yet. But we can't limit ourselves to hosting things just on land anymore. These Low Orbit Server Stations (LOSS) are just the first attempt. With modern radio transmitters we can get over 100Mbps per node up to 50km away. For the proxy system we're building, that's more than enough.
But when time comes we will host in all parts of the galaxy, being true to our slogan of being the galaxy's most resilient system. And all of the parts we'll use to build that system on will be downloadable.


No link though as its to their website and that could be trouble for us here.